rybbit_get_overview

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is a positive signal. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as date-range defaults, response format, pagination, or data aggregation caveats, leaving some ambiguity for agents.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and lists key metrics. There is no redundancy, filler, or irrelevant detail, earning full marks for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a moderate number of parameters (7) and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose, and the schema explains parameters well. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and provides no information about the return structure or any specific behaviors like default date ranges. For a simple read-only tool, the description is minimally viable but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning about the parameters; it only lists the metrics returned. The schema already provides clear descriptions for all seven parameters, including date formats and alternative time windows, so the description does not need to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'Get high-level analytics metrics for a site' and lists the specific metrics (sessions, pageviews, users, bounce rate, session duration). This specifies both the action and the resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'rybbit_get_overview_timeseries' or 'rybbit_get_metric' by emphasizing 'high-level' aggregate metrics. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with 'rybbit_get_site_summary', which could overlap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that this is a summary endpoint, when to choose it over get_overview_timeseries, get_metric, or get_site_summary, or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or contextual recommendations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.